Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Workshop as a lease for manufacturing purpose - The key issue is whether a workshop qualifies as a lease for manufacturing purposes under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (TP Act). The Supreme Court has consistently held that manufacturing purpose should be understood in its popular and dictionary sense and involves a process that results in a transformation or change producing a distinct new article ["Ruprao Nagorao Mahulkar VS Murlidhar Dagduseth Dabhade - 1981 0 Supreme(Bom) 83"], ["Allenbury Engineers Private LTD. VS Ramkrishna Dalmia - Supreme Court"], ["P. N. Venkatesa Chettiar VS Annamalai Industrial Corporation (In Liquidation. ) Represented By Its Liquidator R. Narayanasami - Madras"], ["ANISH ACHYUT CHINUBHAI VS NANIKRAM SOBHRAJ MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED - Gujarat"].
Main points and insights:
The registration of the lease and dominant purpose are significant; unregistered leases or leases with mixed purposes may not qualify as leases for manufacturing purposes ["Gangadhar Naganna Rajulwar VS Chandrabhaga Rajeshwar Gangshettiwar - Bombay"], ["MRS. SHOBHA VIKRAM vs M/S RHEOTECH FOUNDRY PVT LTD - Karnataka"].
Analysis and conclusion:
References:- ["Ruprao Nagorao Mahulkar VS Murlidhar Dagduseth Dabhade - 1981 0 Supreme(Bom) 83"]- ["Allenbury Engineers Private LTD. VS Ramkrishna Dalmia - Supreme Court"]- ["Kali Kumar Sen VS Haridas Roy - Gauhati"]- ["ANISH ACHYUT CHINUBHAI VS NANIKRAM SOBHRAJ MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED - Gujarat"]- ["MOHD. RIHAN ANSARI VS SARDAR JASWANT SINGH - Allahabad"]- ["P. N. Venkatesa Chettiar VS Annamalai Industrial Corporation (In Liquidation. ) Represented By Its Liquidator R. Narayanasami - Madras"]- ["Gangadhar Naganna Rajulwar VS Chandrabhaga Rajeshwar Gangshettiwar - Bombay"]- ["MRS. SHOBHA VIKRAM vs M/S RHEOTECH FOUNDRY PVT LTD - Karnataka"]
In the realm of Indian property law, leases for manufacturing purposes carry unique implications under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property (TP) Act, 1882. This section dictates notice periods for termination: six months for manufacturing or agricultural leases, versus 15 days for others. But what exactly qualifies as 'manufacturing purposes'? A common query arises: whether a workshop is a lease for manufacturing purpose within the meaning of Section 106 of TP Act? This question often pits landlords against tenants in eviction disputes, especially when workshops involve activities like shaping, grinding, or polishing.
Drawing from Supreme Court precedents and key judgments, this post unpacks the criteria, analyzes workshop scenarios, and highlights practical takeaways. While this provides general guidance, consult a legal professional for case-specific advice.
Section 106 presumes leases are from year-to-year for manufacturing/agricultural uses (requiring six months' notice) or month-to-month otherwise (15 days' notice), absent contrary terms. The pivot is 'manufacturing purposes', interpreted not by a statutory definition but in its 'popular and dictionary meaning' per Supreme Court observations. Vora Valibhai Sakkarbhai VS Dhanlaxmi Wife of Chimanlal Gordhandas - 1975 Supreme(Guj) 140
The hallmark? Complete transformation of raw materials into a distinct, commercially different article. Mere changes, improvements, or finishing do not suffice. As clarified, 'the expression manufacturing purpose in section 106 is used in its popular and dictionary meaning, the Transfer of Property Act not having supplied any dictionary of its own'. Baranagar Service Station VS Employees State Insurance Corporation - 1987 Supreme(Cal) 21
Supreme Court rulings provide clarity through analogies like drug mixing or tyre retreading.
In Commissioner of Sales Tax, U. P. v. Dr. Sukh Deo, activities such as 'mixing drugs by a medical practitioner or retreading tyres are not considered manufacturing because they do not involve transforming the original article into a new, distinct product'. Ruprao Nagorao Mahulkar VS Murlidhar Dagduseth Dabhade - 1981 0 Supreme(Bom) 83
P. C. Cheriyan v. Mst. Burfi Devi reinforced: 'the retreading of old tyres does not bring into being commercially distinct or different entity... the old tyre retains its original character, or identity as a tyre'. Thus, such a lease wasn't for manufacturing under Section 106. Ruprao Nagorao Mahulkar VS Murlidhar Dagduseth Dabhade - 1981 0 Supreme(Bom) 83BROOKE BOND INDIA LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - 1983 Supreme(Cal) 188
Similarly, Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia (AIR 1973 SC 425) noted: 'The expression 'manufacturing purpose' in section 106 is used in its popular and dictionary meaning'. A lease for both manufacturing and business doesn't trigger six months' notice if not exclusively manufacturing. Vora Valibhai Sakkarbhai VS Dhanlaxmi Wife of Chimanlal Gordhandas - 1975 Supreme(Guj) 140
These cases emphasize: workshops doing repair/finishing (e.g., drilling holes, surface grinding) modify, not manufacture anew. Ruprao Nagorao Mahulkar VS Murlidhar Dagduseth Dabhade - 1981 0 Supreme(Bom) 83
Workshops vary—auto repairs, metal shaping, woodworking. Typically?
In one case, a tenancy for 'residential and manufacturing purposes' wasn't purely manufacturing, sufficing 15-day notice. 'Section 106... prescribes a six-month notice to quit in cases of tenancies for manufacturing... The court held that the tenancy in suit was not for manufacturing purposes'. MRS. L. A. SAUNDERS VS LAND CORPORATION OF BENGAL LTD. - 1954 Supreme(Cal) 84
True manufacturing? Yes, if transformation occurs:- Brick-making on open plot: Raw clay to bricks—fundamental change. DEVICHAND BALKRISHNA SONVANE VS KISAN SHRIPATI DHUMAL - 1981 0 Supreme(Bom) 103- Raw timber to furniture: New commercial article.
'If the workshop's activities involve the complete transformation of raw materials into a different, commercially recognized article—such as converting raw timber into furniture or turning clay into bricks—then such a lease could be classified as for manufacturing purposes'. DEVICHAND BALKRISHNA SONVANE VS KISAN SHRIPATI DHUMAL - 1981 0 Supreme(Bom) 103
However, petrol pumps (washing/repairing vehicles) may qualify under broader 'manufacturing process' in other statutes like Factories Act, but TP Act demands stricter commercial transformation. Baranagar Service Station VS Employees State Insurance Corporation - 1987 Supreme(Cal) 21
Misclassifying risks eviction suits. Leases not for manufacturing at inception need only 15 days' notice. SATI PRASANNA MUKHERJEE VS FAZEL - 1950 0 Supreme(Cal) 1Chandi Charan Mitra VS Ashutosh Lahiri - 1925 0 Supreme(Cal) 233
In rent control contexts, like Bombay Rents Act, non-deposit of rent loses protections, amplifying eviction ease. Vora Valibhai Sakkarbhai VS Dhanlaxmi Wife of Chimanlal Gordhandas - 1975 Supreme(Guj) 140
| Activity Type | Likely Classification | Notice Period ||---------------|----------------------|---------------|| Shaping/Grinding | Non-Manufacturing | 15 days Ruprao Nagorao Mahulkar VS Murlidhar Dagduseth Dabhade - 1981 0 Supreme(Bom) 83 | | Brick-Making | Manufacturing DEVICHAND BALKRISHNA SONVANE VS KISAN SHRIPATI DHUMAL - 1981 0 Supreme(Bom) 103 | 6 months || Tyre Retreading | Non-Manufacturing BROOKE BOND INDIA LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - 1983 Supreme(Cal) 188 | 15 days |
A workshop is generally not considered a lease for manufacturing purposes under Section 106 unless activities yield a new commercial article via complete transformation. Supreme Court decisions like P. C. Cheriyan and sales tax analogies underscore this. Ruprao Nagorao Mahulkar VS Murlidhar Dagduseth Dabhade - 1981 0 Supreme(Bom) 83 Always assess at lease inception. SATI PRASANNA MUKHERJEE VS FAZEL - 1950 0 Supreme(Cal) 1
This analysis draws from precedents; outcomes vary by facts. Seek tailored legal counsel to navigate TP Act nuances effectively.
References (select excerpts):1. Ruprao Nagorao Mahulkar VS Murlidhar Dagduseth Dabhade - 1981 0 Supreme(Bom) 83: Transformation test.2. DEVICHAND BALKRISHNA SONVANE VS KISAN SHRIPATI DHUMAL - 1981 0 Supreme(Bom) 103: Brick exception.3. BROOKE BOND INDIA LTD. VS UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - 1983 Supreme(Cal) 188: Retreading no.4. BACHULAL SAH VS GITA TIMBER CO. - 1995 Supreme(Ori) 86: Saw mill no.5. Vora Valibhai Sakkarbhai VS Dhanlaxmi Wife of Chimanlal Gordhandas - 1975 Supreme(Guj) 140: Popular meaning.
#TPAct106, #ManufacturingLease, #LeaseLawIndia
Transfer of Property Act, Section 106 - Interpretation - Manufacturing Purpose - Lease for Manufacturing Purpose - Dominant Purpose ... 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. ... 106 of the Transfer of Property Act ... -This second appeal raised a short question as to what is meant by the expression “manufacturing purpose” occurring in section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and whether that purpose#HL....
The expression “manufacturing purposes” in Section 106 is used in its popular and dictionary meaning. ... The burden of proving that the lease was for manufacturing purposes, must for the purposes of Section 106, lie on the party who claims ... The burden of proving that the lease was for manufacturing purposes, must for the purposes of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, lie on the party who claims it to be so, in the pres....
Whether the notice to quit was valid and sufficient under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882? 3. ... Whether the lease was for manufacturing purposes and, therefore, subject to the provisions of section 106 of the Transfer of Property ... 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. ... He further submits that even on the facts found by the court below, the case does not come within the ambit of the expression "manufacturing purpose" #H....
106—Suit—Ejectment of suit and arrears of rent—Filed by respondents against petitioner—Suit decreed by trial Court—And revision ... Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972—Sections 20(2)—Provincial Small Causes Court Act, 1887—Article 4—Transfer of Property Act, 1882—Section ... As laid down in 1952 S.C. 23 (supra) the term of the lease should be determined according to the presumption of law raised under Section 106, T.P. Act. It is not claimed that the lease in questi....
Anant Ramachandra a case arising under a Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the Supreme Court laid down the following tests to ascertain whether a lease has been granted for the purpose of manufacturing process: ... 1. ... Jack Zinader Proprietary Ltd. 78 C.L.R. 336, that the conversion of old fur clothing into other usable articles is a manufacturing purpose within the....
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 106 – Rent Act, 1859 – Section 6 (1), 28 – Lodging House Rates ... That was a case in which the provision of Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was required to be considered and it is in that context that the Supreme Court has considered as to whether a lease for running a flour mill was a lease for "manufacturing purpose" within the....
RENT CONTROL - NOTICE TO QUIT - SUFFICIENCY - TENANCY FOR MANUFACTURING PURPOSES - SECTION 106, TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT - CAUSE ... Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act prescribes a six-month notice to quit in cases of tenancies for manufacturing or agricultural ... 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. ... The appellant contends that the tenancy in suit was for 'manufacturing purposes' within the meaning of the said section.....
Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia, AIR 1973 Supreme Court 425 At page 427, in para 7, it is observed : "The expression 'manufacturing purpose' in section 106 is used in its popular and dictionary meaning, the Transfer of Property Act not having supplied any dictionary of its own for that ... The burden of proving that the lease was for manufacturing purpose, must, for the purpose of #HL_ST....
filed suit for eviction and notice was served under Section 106 of T.P. ... Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 106 - Issuance of notice. - When defendant breached the condition of lease agreement, plaintiff ... Yesodai Ammal, AIR 1979 SC 1745 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court stated that in order to get a decree or order for eviction against a tenant under any State Rent Control Act it is not necessary to give notice under Section#HL_....
Transfer of Property Act and not in relation to Decree No.43525 and therefore the matter requires to be remanded to the first appellate court to give a finding whether the defendant had at all committed a breach of the said agreement by setting up a garage or a motor workshop when it was ... That being so, making out a case under the Rent Act for eviction of the tenant by itself is sufficient and it is not obligatory to found the proceeding on the basis of the determination of the #HL....
SIMILARLY, the next decision of the Supreme Court cited by the learned Advocate General, viz. , Inandas v. Anant Ramchandra Phadke (AIR 1982 SC 127) is also of no assistance in resolving the controversy arising in the present case. So far as the Transfer of Property Act is concerned, it makes departure in the case of a lease for manufacturing purpose and also a lease for agricultural purpose and lays down that termination of such lease would, subject to the contract to the contrary, require six months notice as opposed to 15 days notice in the case of lease for other purposes. In the present....
( 5 ) ALTHOUGH there is no evidence about the activities carried on in the saw mill in question, usually in a saw mill logs of wood are cut into various sizes to be sold to different buyers for the purpose of preparing various wooden articles, and the First Appellate Court has also proceeded upon the said view. Assuming that such kind of work was also done in this saw mill, whether such activity involves any such manufacturing process as will make the lease a lease for 'manufacturing purpose' within the meaning of S. 106 of the Act.
Act not having applied any dictionary of its own for that expression. A. I. R. 1973 S. C. 425 while dealing with' the 'question whether the lease was for manufacturing purpose as contemplated in Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act,the Supreme court has held that "the expression 'manufacturing process' in Section 106 is used in its popular and dictionary meaning, the Transfer of property The word 'manufacture' implies mange but a mere change in the material is not manufactured.
(j) P. C. Cheriyan v. Mst. Barfi Devi, reported in AIR 1980 SC 86. The old tyre retains its original character, or identity as a tyre. The Supreme Court observed as follows (at p. 89) : -"the retreading of old tyres does not bring into being commercially distinct or diffferent entity. In this case the Supreme Court held that the lease of a premises for carrying on the business of retreading of tyres was not a lease for manufacturing purposes within the meaning of S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
